Students' Age at which EFL is Introduced in Schools

Students' Age at which EFL is Introduced in Schools and Educational 0utcomes

Chuzairnah

Dnhlnn

Diem

Language Educstion Studt- Progrum PPS-UNSRI

Abstract: This study tries to see the relationslip between the age at which EFL is introduced in ^public schools and educatioml processes and outcomes. A survey iuvolving 229 students frorn elementary and

junior high schools in Palernbang is conducted. The population con- sists of those who have never taken extra nou-fonrnl English courses.

These students are given the same English tests comprising mostly vocabulary and reading comprehension follorved by a srnall portion of grammar. It is hlpothesized that those rvho slart leaming English ear-

lier have better achievernent. Curriculum. intensity

of

instruction.

teacher education level, years of ELT e.rperience are considered in the analysis, in addition to class size, sludents' SES and gender. Stepwise regression analysis is applied to identify which variable contributes to students' outcomes. The results shorv thcre is no correlation between age alone and the studelts' EFL achievcnre nt. Holvever, negati.,ze sig- nificant correlation is found betlvceu the sftrdents' achievernent and teacher education level and also between tho students' achievernent and SES. Finally, some irnplications of research for theory, poliry, and practice are suggested.

Key words: age" EFL leanilng. elementary school. -iunior lfgh school, teacher education level

Many researchers in applied linguisiics assert that tirere is a relation- ship between age of language learners and their achievement. However, whether or not the relationship is significant and horv significant the con- tribution is, now, in relation to the policy of the government of Indonesia

12

Diem, Stndent,s'Aga al v'ltich EI'-L i.s lnlroduct:d in Schools 43

tlrat offers English. as a local content, beginning frorn the fourth ^grade in srrme elementary schools is r,vhat this study ^wants to find

out. It

is said that the younger the foreign language leamers are the better chance they would learn the target language, especially in tenns of accent and pronun- r:iation. Older learners (at puberty or older) are faster learners

in

a ^way compared to children. As older learners are keen in analyzing word for- rrntion and structural ^pattems, children or yottllger learners are more rno- tivated, very keen in imitating accent and proulttrciation. In addition, this study is also intended to inve5tigate another area, such as students' ^read- ing comprehension in which the two groups of EFL learners (end of fifth grade vs. end

of

eighth grade) tnaybe differcnt in relation to educational processes and learning environment.

'TTIEORETICAL BACKGRO UND

Differential ^success

in

second language acquisition or foreign lan- guage

learning may be

caused

by

scveral factors.

such as,

age

(d'Anglejan, 1990), language aptitude (Mclaughlin, 1990), attitudes ^and rnotivation (McGoarty, 1996), social-psychological factors (Freeman

&

McElhinny, 1996; Rickford, 1996), personaliti', cognitive stylg, h.m'-

sphere specialization (Larsen-Freer.nan

&

Long.

l99l:

153), parents' edu- cation Qakiyah, 2002), learning strategies (ihsan

&

Diem, 1997). and cven gender (Freeman

&

McElhinny, 1996). The ^present study mainly tries to focus on one of the factors, that is, ^age of the learners at rvhich they firstly learn English as a foreign language.

ln

temrs

of

second lan- guage acquisition or foreign language leaming. learners begin acquiring the language at

a

later age than do

first

language learners.

All

children with normal faculties within normal circttmstances master their mother tongue at the age of four but not all older children can acquire a ^second language or learn a foreign language without strlrggle and without limited success. ln other words, age is one ofthe factors that relates to the degree

of

one's success

in

second language acquisition

or

foreign lalguage leaming. Singleton (t999: 218) states that niost

if

not ali aspects, includ- ing lexicons, of L2 acquisition, are affected by the age factor. With respect to the development of English literac1,, d'Anglejan ⁽ 1990) found that those of ^age 6-7 made more rapid progress in Engtish reading that is initiated at that level. This statement supports wirat Krashen et al, (1979), Lightbown

44

^{TEILIN Journal, Volume W,} Numbcrl, Fcltnrary 2004

and Spada (1994), and Harley et al. (1995) have concluded based on their research that age

is a

significant factor that influences one's learning achievement. They assert that older is faster, ^but younger is betfer.

Following the Critical Period Hypothesis

or

Sensitive Period Hy- pothesis, there is "an age-related point (generally puberty) beyond which

it

becomes difficult or impossible to learn a second language to the same

degree as native speakers (NS)

of

that language" (Gass and ^Selinker, 200I: 334). However, not all'researchers agree rvith this

view.

Related to this statement, this study is intended to give ntore evidence whether or not that age

is

one

of

the cruciai factors deterrnining

or

influencing one's achievement in foreign language (FL) learning. especially in their recep- tive skill, such as reading. Therefore, based on the background above,

it

is hypothesized that:

o

there is a significant correlation betrveen student's age at which EFL is introduced

in

schools, teacher education level, years

of

EFL teaching, intensity of instmction. students' Socio Economic Status (SES), and their English achievenrent.

if

significant cor- relation among the variables is ^foLrnd. then some variables must influence the students' ontcornes.

.

there is a significant difference betrveen the English achievement of the students of the elementary school and that of junior _high school in terms of students' age. teacher education level, years

of

ELT experience of the teachers. intensitl,'of instruction, and stu- dents'SES.

METHOI}

The major purpose oithe study is to see rvhether students' age is sta-

tistically related to their English outcomes. Thereforc, data for this study are obtained by using measures designed

for

and used

with

students at their level. A secondary purpose of the stud1, is to soe whether the addition

of

some other factors, especially. teacher education level, years

of

ELT experience, intensity

of

instmction, and students' SES (assuming that class size and student's gender in each level

of

education are somewhat the same), to the prediction rnodel predictirrg EFL achievement variable from age results

in a

significant increase

in

thc explained variation for student achievement

in

learning

EFL.

Therefore. particular factors as

Dicn, Sndants'Agtt ttl ^wlticth IlIi'L i,s Introduc<:d in Schools 45

mentioned above required to obtain the iucrease in explained variation and yct provide a parsimonious model for students' achievement measures are identified. Another ^purpose of the investigation is to subjectively compare the resulting prediction models for the population comprising two groups of students who started learning English

at l0

and at 13 vears of age. In other words, the 5e graders are at the age

of

I

l,

and the ^8th graders are at

14 as it is generally true that the first ^graders start at the age of ^7.

The population from which the sanrple is drawn for this study con- sists of a selected group of ^students wlto have leamed English for more or less

2

years both at elementary and

junior

higlr schools

in

Palembang.

Specifically, subjects chosen

fbr

the sample were those who never took any English courses other than those provided

in

class at their schools following the curriculum suggested. Prior to the collection

of

data, the principal

of

each school was contacted and

only

that. who agreed to her/his school participation was included in the study. Students and their teachers of English at each of those schools lvere asked to respond to the instrument employed, that

is a

set

of

Engiish test comprising mostly reading comprehension, vocabulary, and a little bit of grammar to ^measure the students'English achievement. This test was tried out

to

189 fifth graders and eighth graders of several other schools in Palembang and the result shows that the reliability of the test is 78.

The reason for including only three components of English in the test is that children leam English language through firstly listening to adults reading stories to them, then reading by thernselves, followed by vocabu- lary development and not too much of grarnrnar ^(Read also Dixon-Krauss, 2001). According to Cooper (1988) it is fi"orn oral language that students develop their ability to ^use the rvritten svmbols in reading. Oral ^language

is

clearly the foundation on which

all

reading

is

built. Why not much grammar? Halliwell (L992) saicl that at the priniary school level the chil- dren's capacrty for conscious leaming of fbnns and grammatical pafterns is still relatively undeveloped.

Assuming that such variables as class size (nrore or less 40 students

in

each class) and gender are sornervhat similar

for

both groups except age, then the same test was. given

to

both groups

in

order

to find

out whether difference in age would result

in

different outcomes. However, since the quality

of

students may also vary based on the quality

of

the

46

^TEFLIN Journal, Volume '\7, Numbarl, l'ebruaty 2004

schools and the background

of

the students might make a difference in students' outcomes, then the curriculunl. teacher education level, years

of

English language teaching experience, intensity

of

instruction, and ^the students'SES are certainly identified through the school records, teachers themselves, and site visit to the schools and are included in the model and considered qualitatively or quantitatively in the analysis.

In relation to the educationai processes the fbilowing terms need ex- planation.

(a)

The curriculum. To teach the students English as a foreign lan- guage at the elementary sciroois, the teachers use the curriculum of the Deparfinent of National Educatton (1996) designed as the local content. But at the

junior

lugh school the curriculum is

formally designed

for

EFL as

a

compulsory subject which is subject to be tested at the National Final Examination.

(b)

Intensity

of

instruction.

At

the elenrentary level. English is taught two hours a weck lr,hile at the junior high school.

it

is taught4hoursaweek.

(c)

Teacher education la,el. The teachers involved in teaching the sample students

of

the

junior

_{high school are}

all

permanent teachers

and

have become

public

servants. These teachers graduated fronr D2 Progranr.

Dl

PGSM Program. and S1 PGSM Program. Meanwhile, fbr the elententary school, none

of

^them

are permanent tcachers. Instead, the1, are either student teachers from sixth-semester

of

S

I

progranr rviro take tums teaciring at the school as volunteet'teachers every senlester or a part-time S1

graduate teacher.

(d)

Years of

ELT

experience.

All

thc sixth-semester-student teach- ers teaching at the elementary school have only six month-EFl teaching-experience

(i.e.

r,vhen they havc

their EYL

subject practicum) while one of them has onc and a half year teaching experience.

(e)

Class size.

At

the elementary sch,rol,

3

classes were involved andthe range of the students in eacir class is betrveen 35 and 45 the junior high school there are also three classes involved in the study and the size of each class is around 36 to 40.

In terms of the background of the students. the follorving information

I)ienr, Studcnts',49c ul vhic:lt Ll,L ^i,s lrrlroduccd in School.s 4'l

can be presented.

(a)

Socio-Economic-St stu s.

From the elementary schools. there are

7

(6.03%) farmers, 49

(42.24%) blue-collar rvorkers. (10 34%)

public

servants, 17

(14.66%) smalltraders.

l9

^{(l6.3fl%) private} soctor rvorkers. and

I2

(10.34%) drivers. Fronr the lunior high school, there are 4 (3.53o/") soldiers, 7 (6.2%) public seryarlts.6 (5.31%) car driv-

ers, 24 (21 .24%) bricklayers,

3I

⁽²⁷ .43%) servants, IZ ⁽¹⁰ .62%\

pedicab drivers, and 29 ⁽²⁵ .66%) r.nerclrants.

(b)

Gender-There are 103 males (57 elementary school students;

46

junior

high school students), 126 fernales (59 elementary school students and 67junior high school students)

To assess the relations among the variables.

all of

the quantitative data are u:a,ly zed using Pearsou-p roduct-monrent correlation coeffi cient analysis followed by stepwise rnultiple regression analyses, and the hy- potheses are tested applying associatcd F-statistics r.rsing an alpha level

of

"05

if

significant correiations are

found.

And to see the mean difference between the two groups of thc students ANOVA ^is used.

RESI]LTS

In

reporting the results

of

tlre studr,. the discussion is divided into sections describing the hypothesized frndings artd a summary of the actual findings. However. before discussing the specific rcsults obtained from the testing of the hypotheses and summarizing the findings, the following descriptive information is presentcd.

Summaries of santple si7cs, metns, und standord lcviations of the variables Table 1. Summaries of Students' Achievement Bascd on Students' Age

Variable Frequency Nlenn Strrndartl Deviation

ll

^years

14 years

It6

I 13

44.89 44.',I3

t -s.07 8.87

48

^{WFLIN Journal, Volume} W, Numb<:rl, licbnmr.v 2001

Table 2. Summaries of Student Achievement Based on Teacher-Education l.evel

T's teaching ex- Siandnrd Devintion

6 months l8 months 120 months 144 months 180 rnonths

Blue-color workers Farmers

Pedicab riden Soldiers Servants Bricklayers Public servants Businessmen Drivers

Private sector workers Small traders

53 86 31.24 44.3 3 46. t6 43.21

9.51 I t.24

8.54 e.58 ft.05

r.^.-,t^.-l n^-,:^.i^-

6.31 3. l5 7.69 12.6t 8.93 ( ₂₀ I l.0t 9.fi6 t3. ¹⁴

I 0.56 t0.64 Table 4. Summaries of Students' Achicvenrcnt Basod on Stutlcnts' SES

Students's SES

5 6.61

55.46 50.75 45.76 45.42 44.71) 43.95 43.-14 33.{)( )

32.00 3 r l2 No. Educational Out-

comes

fdur:ntion Levcl

of the Teachers l!{can Std. Devlatlon I Total EFL

Achievement

D2 6e.semester

SI

44.33 -50.65 .36.95

8.54 t0.24 I1.49 2 Vocabulary

Achievernent

D2 6ft semester

SI

74,95 27.19 20.45

5.26 5. l3 6.32 3. Reading Compre-

hension Achievement

t>2 6fr semestsr

St

13.86 17. I ti 11 42

2.24 4.60 4.50 4. Grammar

Achievernent

D2 6dtsentester

SI

5.52 6.28 5.08

3.46 t.62 2.57

Table 3. Summaries of Students' Achievemcnt Bascd on Tcrcher's ELT Experience

49 7 t2 4 3t

l9

29 t8 i9 t7

Dient, Shtdents'Age al v'hic'lt l:l''L is Irrtt'oduced in Schools 49

Table 5. Summaries of Students' Achievemcnt Basctl un Students' Gender

Student's gender Frequency l\'lcan Standard Deviation

Male Female

103 126

45 70 44.08

12.16 12.56

Pearson hodud Mon ent Conelation Coeflicient of the Vafiublcs

Table 6. Pearson Product Moment Corrclation Cocflicients of the Variables Measured

Variables (lorlelrtion p<

Student Achievement Studeut SES

T---l---ri-- .l-, r----1

rcauilct ltuuuitu(lt ltrlcl

-"192 - 44?

.004

.{J0{.)

Table

7,

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Cocfficients of the Sub-Variables Measured

Variables

049 000 NS

Mean Dffirences of Students' Achievenrcnl

Table 8, Mean Difference of Studcnt Achieyemcnt Birscd on Teache r-Education l-rvel Lur[patNufl ot I cuuil(f

Education Level Mean Dlll'ertncc Std. Eu'or Lcvel of Slgnificance

Sl and D2

Sl and 6ft Semester D2 and 6ft Semester

7.3rJ 13.7r)

6.32

2.58 1.49 2.51

p<0.01 p<0.u00

p<0.03 p<

TEFLIN Joumal, Volume XV, Nunberl, l'ebnn4t 2004

Table 9. Means of Students' Achievement Bascd on Students' SES

Students' SES Mean of Total Achievenrents

I\{ean of Rending

l\,lran of Vo- cabulary

Mean of Gram- illar Farmers

Blue-collar workers Public servants Small traders Private sectors Drivers Soldiers Bricklayers Servants Pedicab riders Businessmen

55.43 56.63 43.95 3t.12 32.12 33.00 45.76 44.79 45.42 5A.75 43.34

t0.00 t9.84 t4.26 8.-53 9.86 0.50 5.75

,t .96 4.84 6.'75 -\.1)/.

28.43 29.92 2,3.84 18.59 17.2t

1 7.83

24.25 24 79 25.10 2'7.25 24.4t

7.40 6.88 5.84 4.00 4.95 4.67 5.75 6.04 5.48 6.',t5 5.31

Table 10. Mean Difference of Studcnts' Achig,e'mcnt bared on Students' SES Comparison of Studen( Achicvtlrrenl

Bascd on thoir SES NIcan l)ilTcrerrce Level of Sig- nificance

Farmers Traders

Private scctor workers Private Ihivers

24.31 23.43 22 41

.000 .000 .000 Blue-collar workers Public servants

Srnall traders Private sector r.vorkers Private l)rivers Bricklayers ServarrLs Ilusinessnrerr

12.43 25.52 l4.t).1

2 3.63 I 1.84 1t.2t t3 29

.000 .000 .000 000 .000

t lf)r'l 000 Public servants Traders

Private sector workers Drivers

12 l{3 I 1.95 I 0.95

.001 .002 .01 I

Traders Brickiayers

Servants Pedicab drivers 13usiuessrnerr

l-1.67 t 4.30 19.63 t2.23

.000 000 .000 .00 t Private sectors Bricklayers

Servants Pedicab drivers Businessnreu

2.79 'J.42 8.75 1.34

.000 .000 .000 .00 i

Private Drivers Bricklayers ServaDts Pedicnb drivers Businessnrert

1.79 2.42 7.75 0.34

.oa2 .0t|0 .000 .007

Dienr, Strtdents'Age al v'lticlt ]')l7l' is lnlroduccd ^fu School,s 5l

S ummaics of D ep e n dent Vafi a b Ie s fr ^{o rrl I n de p e rt d e} nt Va r i a b I e s

Table 11. Summary Statistics for Predicting Students' EFL Achievement Variable from Age, Teacher Edttcation Levcl, Teachcr ELT Expcrience' and Stu- dents' SES

Model Independent Varfuble I)epcndent

Vnria ble ^R rt2 F P<

I Teacher

Level

Education

A C FI

I

E

E M E N

T'

.448 201 57.106 000

t Student SES ¹⁹² 037 8.682 .004

2 Teacher Education level +

Student SES

.52? It-t 42.401) ,000

z Teacher Education level +

Student SES + ELT Experience

6t'7 .38 t 46 088 000

2 Teacher Education level + ELT Experience +

Ase

.642 4tz 52.466 .000

2 Teacher Education level + Students' SES + ELT Experietce +

Ase

644 .415 39.704 000

Based on the analysis.

it

is fbund lhat there is no statistical ^correla- tion between age and students' EFL achievenlerlt although

in

terms

of

means, the total achievement of thosc who stafi earlier in EFL leaming ^is a little bit higher ^(Mean

:

44.89'. SD

=

^{l-5.07) tlran tliat of older leamers}

(Mean:44,73;

SD = 8.87). SeeTable ^1. There is also no significantre- lationship between

the

teacher's

ELT

experience and students' EFL achievement.

Hcwever, there is a negative significant corrolatiotl botween teacher- education level and their students' total achievoment (R

:

_-.448; p<0.01).

Judging from the means obtained

by

the trvo groups

of

students,

it

^is

found that there is

a

difference

in

terms

of

the three levels

of

teacher- edugation

in

relation to the total achievemenl of the students (See Table

7).

There is also a significant correlation bettveen students' achievement

52

^T'EFLIN JounraL VolumcXV, Nruttbcrl, P-ebruory 2004

in each component of EFL ^and their teacher education level. For example, there is a significant correlation between: vocabulary and teacher educa- tion (R =

-

443: p<0.01), reading conrprehcnsion and teacher education (R

=

-.434; p<0.01), and gramrpar and teacher education level

(R =

^-.199:

p<0.01).

Furthermore,

it is

interesting

to

note that students, who are taught by the sixth-semester-student teachers got the highest mean (Mean

=

50.65;

SD:

10.24) compaiecl to thosc rvho are taught by Sl-graduate teachers (Mean = 36.95, SD

=

^{I 1.49)} in their total achievement.

It

is more shocking that those who are tar.rght

by

D2-graduate teachers (Mean = 44.33: SD = 8.54) are even beftor than tirose rvho are taught by

Si

^gradu- ates. In details judging frorn the language colltpollents, such as vocabu- lary, reading comprehension. and grarnurar, those who are taught by the sixth-semester-student teachers are bstter (Mean

:

_27.19,

_SD :

_5.13'

Mean

=

17.18, SD = 4"60: Mean

= 62tt.

SD

=

^1.62) than those

of

D2 graduate teachers (Mean

:24.95.

_{SD =} 5.2(r: McAn

=

l3.tt6, SD = 2.24.

Mean

:

_{5.52, SD}

₌

_{3.461) rvhich}

_is

reasonable. but they are better than those whose teachers are

Sl

graduates (Mean

:20.45.

_{SD = 6.32; Mean} :11.42, _{SD = 4.50; Mean}

:

_{5.08, SD}

:

2.57)" rvhich needs further expla- nation.

Basedon the means above,

it

is found that fhcrc is a statistically sig- nificant difference

of

the studeuts' achievernents (elementary school vs.

junior high school) as secn from their teacher education level. For exam- ple the difference between those r.vho are tar:ght bv s

I

graduate teachers and D2 graduate teacliers is 7.38

(p.0.0i);

_the cliffcrence between ihose who are taught by ^S

I

graduate teachers and sernester-sixth-student teach- ers

is

^13.70 (p<0.001); _and the difference beru,een those who are taught

by D2

graduate teachers and sernester-sixth-student teachers

is

^6.32

(p<0 03). See Tabie 8

Furthermore, based on Table 7.

it

can be secn that there rs also a negative significant correlation betrveen students' sES and their achieve- ment (R

:

-.192, p<0.004). Based on tlrc strrdcnt SES of both lcvels of the schools,

it

is found that children

of

blue collar u'orkers are on the first rank in the achievernent folloived b1' childrcn of fairriers, pedicab riclers, soldiers, servants, bricklayers, public servants. businessmen, private sector workers, drivers, and small tmders.

A

sumrnary for the statistics for pre- dicting their EFL achievement fronr teaclrer eclucation level only and stu-

Diem, Sn:dctt.s'Agc at vlrich lil;'1, ^i,s lntrorluctd in School.s 53

dent SES only, and or'plus age and teacher ELT experience can be seen in 'fable

ll.

From table

l,

^{it has been} kuou,n that there rs no statistical cor*

relation between age only and students' EFL acltievement (R

=

^{-.007: F}

099;p<A.921). However. teacher educatiott level alone and SES alone has

significant correlation

with

student achieverttent.

R :

_{.448, R2}

₌

_.201,

p<.000 and

R =

^-.192,R2

=

^{.037. p<004} rcspectively. When these two factors are combined, then the correlation incrcased into R

=

^{.,552, R2 =}

273,p<.000. After that, when ELT cxperience is added to these trvo fac- tors. the correlation increases into R

=

^{.611. R2}

= .3ttl. p..000.

Finally rvhen these three factors arc conrbined u'ith ^age. thcrc is a little increase in explained variation in the achicverrent

of

thc studcnts.

M :

_{.644, R2 =}

415, p<.000.

UISL USJIL'I\

Since the students come

frotl

difl-erent ieve ls of education (Elemen- tary Education vs. Junior Higlr Schooi Eclucation). otte rvould expect that there would be a difference in achievelneltt of the students itt terms of age

(ll

vs. ^14, inwhich older studerlts ntust ltavc been bcttcr) at rvhich Eng- lish is introduced, intensity of instruction (2 ltottrs vs. 4 hours), curriculum (local _content which focuses

on only

vocabtrlary and oral reading vs.

compulsory subject which focuses ott the fbur skills

of

English including vocalrulary and grammar). But the flrct shotvs. tto correlations found be- tween age and those variables. This nrav be cattsed by the heterogcneity in age of the

two

groups

of

the students. that ^is" onlv age I

I

and age 14.

However, having no difference itr achievctrtcrtt l:ctrvcetr those u'ho start earlier but with less hours and tirosc u'ho start later btrt rvith more hours

of

time spent learning. suggests has short'ed that thc !'ollnger the ^students start leaming a foreign language. the better the achievenrent ^r.vill be.

Then, the negative significant correlatiott bctu'een tcacher education level and the English achievetrtent

of

thc strtdettts needs explanation.

If

cducation reflects the quality of tlte tcacher. tlrsn ifs correlation and influ- ence on the success of ^the children should be positive. The plausible rea- son for this is probably that thelc ^arr; t\\'o ^t1'pes of teachers-those who are permanent teachers and tvho have ^beett teaching for quite a long time and those who are still students in the sixth selnestsr of

Sl

program lvho only have ELT experience for lltore or less (r montlrs. Therefore. there is a

{

54

'I'EItl,lN Journal, tr/olunrc X'V, Nilnlterl, Ibbruary 2001

possibility that older teachers are sornewhat "wam out" so that they are not creative any more and not \,vell-prepared when teaching. They may not keep up with the new development in therr field either, especially in the new methods and techniques of TEFL. Meanwhile, the younger teachers are those who are still fresh and are still ven, eager to apply new methods and techniques they have

just

leamed

frorl EYL

class and use various materials and visual aids to n-rake their teachirrg and leaming process more interesting. This means that having higher lcvel of education and having more years in ELT experience do not necessarily result in skilled teachers and evenfuaiiy successfui learners

if

tire teacirers do nor brush up their knowledge and skills in their field.

The same is true for the rnean differencc alltong the students' achie- vement based on their SES. It scenrs that those rvho coure from the lower class got higher achievement than those rvho ^are in the middle class status (See Tables 9 and l0).

Based on the discussion above, it can be conclr-rded that

(l)

children who start earlier in EFL Ieaming is better in EFL achievement than older learners. This is in line with Krashen. et al."s finding that age is a signifi- cant factor to consider irr one's EFL leaming: (2) success in ELT cannot only be judged by the teacher educatiorr levcl and vears of teaching expe- rience but also fron-r the actual process

of

teaching and lcaming

in

the classroom, that is the motivation and creativity of tlre teaclrcrs themselves in teaching; (3) succcss of thc students in EFL lclrniug, on the otlrer hand, is not merely determinecl by ttre atflueuce

oi

their parcnis. When the stu- dents are treated equally and r,vith the teacher's enthusiasrn in the teach- ing-learning process, this rnight rnake a morc significant differencc in stu- dents' achievement.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY, POLICY, AND/OR PRACTICE

The results of the ^prescnt

studl rvill

have sorre inrplications to the theory, policy, and practice of the English language reaching (ELT) in In- donesia.

At

least,

it

v,'ill be rrsed

ts

a recou.ullondaticn to the Department of National Education of horv to deal rvith the ELT programs in Indone- sian scliools. In terms of the theory

of

English language teaching (ELT), the findings of this study, mn give nrore support to the theory of English language teaching

in

tliat the early age serves as

a

decisive factor that

[.)iam, Stttdcttt,s'Agtt rtl t'lticlt ]il'l' is lttln>dur:ed in Schools 55

makes the foreign lalguage learnilg successtll. Ip other words, ^elemen- tary pupils ^are bitter sicond ^lauguage lcquirers or fbreign language learn-

*r,

"on,lpur.d

to

the older ^learners.

In

tcrms

of

tlte policy

of ELT.

^the findings

of

this study can be ^used as

a

^ne\\/ cortsideration

to

make the Englisi subjeet that ^{has been tar-rght} to thc forrrth graders compulsory ^and/

ol.

!rr.n

^make

it

^{exposed students}

^tionr

^the

^first

^grade

^of

^Elementary

Schools. This means that

it

shoulcl bc oflicial15' stated in the national cur- riculum as a compulsory subject. Altiroggh

in

gcneral the analysis does

not prove significint diflcrence of tlre achieverlrerlt of.both groups of ^the students,

stiu in

terms

of

reading cornprchettsiott. ^5'h graders (mean =

l4j})

are better than ^8'h graders (mcan

=

14.30) r'vith an

F =

^39.715,

p<01. Also in terms of granlmar, although therc is no significant differ-

ince

but the mean scor; ob1oiled b,, the 5'r' graders (mean

=

^{5.75) is}

higher than that of the 8'h graders (mcan = 5.58). Therefore. this study can .n"hun"* the more intense practice of English at scltools and among chil- dren. In addition, it is advisabt. ^{go, the teachers} of English to ^{alrvays keep} up with the new developments

of

ELT by participating ip workshops or serninars. However. in order to obtaill rttore plattsibie results, further ^re- search must be done by including ^{urore schools} (private and state schools) and

all

the

four skills-l-istening,

Speaking. Rcading. and Writing and adding Grammar, Vocabulary and Phonolog), to then-r. The researclr may deal

ii

Topics, Functio's, ^a,rd Notions. dcscribing ^language

in

terms

of

how

it

is used in conurunicatiotr rathcr than ^sceing it as a linguistic ^sys- tem or a set of skills.

REFERENCES

Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualisnt in cletelopnrcnt: Longuage, literacy, and cogtti' llon. Cambridge : ^Ca-rnbri dge Uirive rsi t.i P ress'

Cameroq

L.

2001. Teaching ionguogut to .vo,tt.'g, learners. Carnbridge: Cam- bridge UniversitY Press.

D',AnglejJn, A. 1990. The role of corltext anil age itt tlic clevelopnlent oTbilingu,al

f.ofi"i.nry.

^{In B. Harley, p. Allen. J" Cununins.}

&

M. Srvain (Eds,). The developmint of secontl languttge pro.ficianr:.rt

(pp

l46-157)' Cambridge:

Carnbridge UtriversitY Press.

'i.

$

**

I

I

56

TEFLIN Journal, Volunrc Xl', Nuntbt:rl, l.'ehnrary 2()01

Cooper, J. D", Wamcke, E.W., &, Shiprnan, D. A. 1988. The what and how read- ing instruction. 2nd ed. Coluurbus, OH: Merill Publishing Company.

Dixon-Krauss,

L.

2001. Using literature as a context for teaching vocabulary.

Journal ofAdolescent & Adult Literacy. 45(4),3 l0-318.

GasS. S. M.

&

Selinker,

L.

2001. Secorul language acquisition: An introductory course. 2"d ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lalyrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Freema& R. & McElhinny, B. 1996. Language and gender. In S. L. McKay & N.

H. Hornberger @ds.). ,<iociolinguistics antl languoge teaching (pp. 2lS- 280). Cambridge: Carnbridge Universify Press.

Halliwell, S. 1992. Teaching English in the prirnar.v ,tchool.y. New York, Ny:

Longman.

Harley,E}., Howard, J., & ^Ha-rt, D. 1995. Second language processing at different ages: Do younger leamers pay lnore atfention lo prosodic cues than sentence structure? Language Learning 45 (l). 43-i l.

Ihsan, D., & Diem, C. D. 1997. The leanring sfyles and lalguage learning strate- gies of the EFL students at tertiary level. Tlte Journal o.f Educatiotr. a (Spe- cial edition), 319-332.

Krashen, S., Long, M.,

&

Scarcblla, R. 1979. Age. rafe. iurd eventual attainment in second language acquisition 7'F:,\OL Quarterl.v ^13, 5i3-582.

Larsen-Freemaq D., & Long,

M.

1991. An introduction to second language ac- quisition re search. London: Longnran.

Lightbown, P.,

&

Spad4 N. 1994. An imovarive progranl for primary ESL in Quebec. TES;OL Quarterly ²⁸ (3).563-579.

McGroarty,

M.

1996. Language atlitudes, lrotivation" and standards.

In

S. L.

McKay & N. H. Homberger (Eds.). ,sociolingui,ttics antl language teaching (pp. 3 -46). Czunbridge: Carnbridge Un iversi!;' ^press.

Mclaughlin, B. 1990. The relationship betrveen first ancl second largrnges: Lan- guage proficiency and Ianguage aptilude. ht B. ^Harley. p. _{Allcn, J. Cum-}

mins, & M. Swain Gds.), ^Tha tlevelopnenf o.[secontl languoge proficiency (pp. 158-174). Cambridge: Caurbridge Uuiversity ^press.

odliq

T. 1989. Language trans"fbr; (lros.s-lingui.:^tic itlfluence in language learn- ing. Cambridge: Carnbridge Universify Press.

Rickford, J. R. 1996. Regional and social variation. In S. L. McKay

&

N. H.

.

Hornbetger, ,\iociolinguistics anct languctge tcaching (pp. 15l-I94). Cam- bridge: Cambridge Univers ⁱ ty ^press.

Singletorq D. 1999. Exploring the .recoflc! lartguage nental lexicon. carnbridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Diem, Sludails',,lgc ul v'hi<:h li[i'|, i.s Intrtxluced it Sclnols ^5'7 Widdowson, H. 1998. Skills, abililies and contexts of realig. Annual Review

of

Applied Linguistics: Founclatiotrs o.f ,\econd Longuage Teaching, 18, 323' 335.

Zakiya,R.2002. The inJluence of parent.t' educaiion and involventent on young

le arne rs' Engli sh achieventen t. Unpublished uttdergmdutte thesis, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education. Srirvijaya Universiry.